10 February 2009 :
Speech
United States of America
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Olner. I am sure you will not mind me saying that you do an excellent job in that capacity. I, too, declare an interest as I am married to an American citizen.
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this timely and topical debate. I congratulate President Barack Obama on his election to office. His arrival in the Oval Office is an historic event, which I hope will do much to repair America’s reputation in the world. I hope that he will introduce innovative policies to deal with old and new economic and security threats. Those threats endanger the United States and the United Kingdom.
Britons want and need a strong and prosperous America. I wish President Obama political wisdom and courage in equal measure. Our two nations enjoy excellent bilateral relations. As reiterated in recent days by Secretary of State Clinton, we are bound by shared values, shared interests and shared priorities. We also benefit from a shared history; a history that witnesses thousands of Americans leaving their homes each year to search out their British cousins and ancestries. Likewise, thousands of UK citizens journey to America to stay with new-found relatives or to enjoy return visits in cities as far apart as Savannah, Sacramento and Seattle.
Our common bond runs far deeper than the £108 billion trade between our nations each year and far deeper than the thousands of American companies that transact business in this country. It is greater than the 158,000 American citizens living in the UK, many of whom are married to British people. It goes beyond the 16,000 American students who enjoy the benefits of a British university education. The bonds that I speak of are etched in blood.
It would be a dishonour to the American people to hold a debate on this subject and not pay tribute to the brave American sons and daughters who have shed their blood over many generations and in many conflicts when fighting to defend the freedoms that we all enjoy today. In the second world war, in Europe alone, nearly 250,000 American servicemen sacrificed their lives to bring peace. The figure is far higher for the global war. America has an honourable and spiritual legacy of brotherhood and fellowship with this country.
Whatever the rationale or justification behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the brave and fearless servicemen and women of the United States continue to put themselves in harm’s way, often alongside British troops and personnel. They do so not only to protect America’s interests, but to protect America’s commitments to its allies and friends. This morning I pay tribute to the American people and salute them. I hope that colleagues will join me in doing so.
Last year, I was asked by a journalist in Washington whether I thought anti-Americanism would die when George W. Bush left office. That was a naive question, even from a journalist who had little time for Bush or for Republicans. Anti-Americanism may well have increased under the second Bush presidency, but the person who resides in the White House is not the magnet for people’s hatred of America. People hate America because of what the American people stand for: their spirit, beliefs and values; their sense of being, providence and destiny; their belief in the freedom of democracy, speech and religion; and their belief in the power of individuals to realise their highest dreams and full potential. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the website “America in the World”, which was established to fight anti-Americanism.
Barack Obama stated in his inaugural address that
“we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man ... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake. And so ... know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more.”
It is those beliefs and national virtues that so enrage America’s enemies.
I say to those who disparage the imperfections of democratic Governments that it is all too easy to defend brutal and dictatorial regimes when one does not live under their terror and repression and when one is not fettered by the thought police or religious masters. At its worst, political liberal romanticism is hypocritical to its core and gives succour to America’s enemies and to those who continue to incarcerate the spirit of their people and to shackle the humanity of their citizens. Western-style democracy is not right for every culture and ethnic group, but some sort of accountability and transparency there must be. Governments should be for the people and be elected by the people. In a manner and at a time of the people’s choosing, it should be possible for the people to remove those same Governments.
I believe that freedom is a universal human right. That is why the special relationship is so important. America and the United Kingdom are still a force for good in the world. We should not shy away from ensuring that our economic, humanitarian and military assets are deployed to defend and uphold our mutual and national interests.
Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): My hon. Friend is delivering a passionate speech on this country’s special relationship with America and America’s relationship with the world. At the heart of our special relationship with America is friendship. All friendships need constructive criticism. Does he agree that the reason we have such a great relationship with America is that we have had the courage and conviction over the years not always to agree with everything that America has done? We have stood up for the rights of this country when they have been in contradiction with what has happened in America.
Mark Pritchard: As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In politics, yes men do not always give the best advice. Their advice is a reiteration of what they have heard and so is no advice at all. A candid friend is perhaps the best friend of all. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Conservative party and this country seek not a slavish, but a solid relationship with the United States.
In an ideal world, the cultured and enlightened but deeply dissatisfied people of Iran, particularly the young aspirational Iranians, would bring about internal change. Given that Iranians face one of the world’s most oppressive Governments, that appears unlikely in the short term. It is particularly unlikely if Iran’s leaders continue to employ their gerrymandered form of democracy.
A peaceful outcome to the current Iranian impasse must be the goal of all politicians and diplomats. However, it will be achieved only if the international community unites to contain and restrict Iran’s nuclear advancement. There must be new resolve, not a loss of will or an unwillingness to face down the harsh realities of Iran’s aggression. The new American Administration would do well to remember that Iran’s political masters are well versed in duplicity or taqiyyah. Even under the so-called moderate regimes of Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami, Iran continued to trade talks for time. As the new President stretches out his hand, I hope that he avoids being seduced into a long, protracted dialogue to nowhere—a diplomatic cul-de-sac of talks about talks—while Iran continues to build a nuclear bomb.
European diplomats and politicians, including some here today, quite rightly talk about carrots and sticks, but they should not turn their faces from the harsh reality that Ahmadinejad’s prize carrot is not improved relations with the United States, but ownership of his very own nuclear weapon—technology aimed at America’s allies, including Europe, Israel and other Muslim nations. Every hour, the nuclear clock is ticking, and the time for diplomatic dialogue is running out. If Iran joins the world’s nuclear club in late 2009, as some US intelligence analysts believe, the middle east paradigm will change irreversibly. It will sound the starting pistol for a new regional arms race, and overnight Iran’s nuclear bomb will have become an apocalyptic stick with which the beat the world, and British interests too. That is why, if diplomacy fails, and Iran’s fist remains clenched, President Obama will need a credible military option to stop Iran.
The stark reality is, however, that the new American President has no feasible military option with which to neutralise Iran’s nuclear threat: a conventional attack is unlikely against the world’s eighth largest army and given America’s existing commitments elsewhere; a tactical nuclear attack is politically unpalatable, would have considerable nuclear, political and diplomatic fall-out for many years, and would be an environmental disaster; and a multiple cruise missile attack is unlikely to penetrate or dismantle Iran’s reinforced nuclear bunkers. That is why President Obama should commit to developing a new generation of non-nuclear, conventional, inter-continental ballistic missiles. The use of such new hypersonic mass technology would restore America’s deterrent and military advantage, and give President Obama much-needed military and diplomatic flexibility. Israel could, of course, take unilateral military action, but that could be seen by America’s enemies as weakness, procrastination or a failure to act. America’s new tone is welcome, but it must not strike a note that empowers or emboldens its enemies.
In the American State Department, the Pentagon and elsewhere in Washington DC, including in the previous and current White House Administrations, is a shared view that a united Europe is good news for America’s national security, for its treaty obligations under NATO and for reducing the likelihood of future conflicts in Europe. I understand that view, but it is fundamentally flawed. I understand that a stable Europe is good news for America and Britain, but it is individual nation states, within Europe, that have stood with America in times of need. Never—not even in world war two—has there been a fully united European voice; there have only ever been the voices of nation states, some coming together.
Replace the nation state with political hegemony, and those nations that have supported America—often going it alone—might in future be drowned out by a chorus of diplomatic disapproval and political disunity. I say to policy makers in Washington that a single political Europe with a common defence and foreign policy, and eventually with a single federal President, will not be good for the United States, or indeed for Britain, even if a future President turns out to be former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Starkly, a united states of Europe will undermine, not enhance, the national security of the United States of America. Recent history should teach us that lesson.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, much of which I agree with, but he is in danger of putting up an Aunt Sally. I do not believe that anyone in the European Union is talking about the sort of political union that he mentioned or about getting rid of national vetoes on foreign and security policy, and nor should they. However, what did he think of Vice-President Biden’s speech, in Munich, the other day, when he called strongly for the European Union to take an increased role in this area to ensure that member states do more in supporting the United State’s efforts?
Mark Pritchard: It is right that the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and even we, as individual politicians, put aside partisanship and—dare I say it?—narrow and polarised views, so that we can work for the common good and humanity of all those whom we seek to serve. That means that Europe must work together closely and with the United States. In recent times, however, particularly over issues of major defence and foreign policy objectives, different views have been held in Europe—particularly France and Germany—from those that might have been expressed in this House in support of the United States.
Mike Penning: Does my hon. Friend agree that the American and British frustration is that so many European countries that say that they will support our troops in conflict, physically do not? They will go out to places such as Kandahar, but very rarely will leave the bases, whereas British and American troops are on the front line. So many countries that talk the talk do not put up the troops to take part in the action.
Mark Pritchard: Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Those NATO members that enjoy the benefits of membership should step up to the plate to provide more troops, particularly given that we are likely to see a surge over the coming months. It should not be left just to the United States and the United Kingdom—indeed, I pay tribute to Denmark and Canada, and to Australian special forces as well. The role of some of the other countries that he alludes to, and the contribution that they could make to the new surge, is a debate for another time, and perhaps another place, in this House. For example, if Germany cannot provide more troops in a kinetic role, it could provide more in non-kinetic roles, such as in assisting hospital services in camp Bastion, so that troops can be released for duties elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) might want to reread the constitutional treaty—the Lisbon treaty—under which some vetoes would certainly have been given up.
If the United Kingdom loses its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, would it be good or bad for America? American defence and foreign policy analysts need to ask such questions today, not tomorrow, when it is too late. A European Union dominated by a Franco-German foreign policy and defence axis would not be good for America’s national security, or its self-interest. Consider Afghanistan!
Similarly, the United States ought to think very carefully about its stated aim to see Turkey accede to the European Union. On the face of it, the United States has a perfectly valid and rational foreign policy reason for doing so. It makes sense to encourage Turkey to look westwards, rather than eastwards, and anything that can be done to encourage a stable and secular Turkey avoiding radicalisation makes perfect sense. It would be good for Britain and good for America. A peaceful and prosperous Turkey is good for all of us. However, the unintended consequences of Turkey ceding to the European Union would eventually undermine America’s national security, because the free movement of peoples, under existing EU rules, would result in a mass migration of peoples from Turkey to towns and cities all over Europe—I grant that—but in particular over the United Kingdom. In sufficient numbers, such mass migration would change irreversibly the social and cultural fabric of this country.
The socio-cultural dynamic of America’s closest ally will have changed. Such a change will have profound and lasting political and bilateral consequences for the United States. That is not scaremongering, but a candid, over-the-horizon assessment of what could happen given the UK’s past experience with the accession of other EU countries and new applicants. Instead, Turkey should be given full trading access and rights to EU markets, but should not be allowed to become a full member. If it does, the issue of migration post-Maastricht should be dealt with for not just Turkey, but others.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a bit of leeway, but we are straying rather a long way from America.
Mark Pritchard: Given your expertise in the matter, Mr. Olner, you will know that Turkey is currently a very dominant issue in the American Congress. Congressman Ed Whitfield for Kentucky, who chairs the Turkey caucus, takes a different view from me. Nevertheless, such a matter is relevant to the bilateral relations. None the less, I thank you, Mr. Olner, for your guidance.
In conclusion, history is shaped for good or ill by the great alliances of nations. The strategic alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom has provided security for more than 100 years. It is a relationship that has, and continues to be, a force for good. That is why America should reverse any foreign policy objectives that jeopardise that special relationship. If Britain and America are a diminishing club of a few good men, then Washington policy makers should be alert to that stark reality and to anything that undermines or threatens it. A weakened Britain means a weakened United States. It is in the national interests of both countries to use all means necessary—however unpalatable and counter-intuitive—to keep this alliance strong and beyond the vagaries and transience of any particular Administration. The alliance should be defended at all costs against all enemies, both within and without, and against those who seek to put enmity between our two nations. Such enemies ultimately want to destroy our way of life and the shared values to which I have referred. America is still a beacon on a hill, as the new American President has paraphrased. It is an extraordinary country with extraordinary men and women. I should like to say without hesitation or equivocation, may God bless the United States of America.
11.22 am
... MARK'S LATER INTERVENTIONS IN THE SAME DEBATE Mark Pritchard: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s optimism and I hope that it is worthy of the amount of time that he has given it this morning in relation to our European allies, but the fact is that we have been trying to utilise that leverage for the past five years, sadly to little effect. Of course we need to work with our European allies and America as much as we can, but when those European allies are holding back the British national interest and the joint UK and American national interest, we cannot keep waiting for them to change their minds.
Mr. Davey: On that point there is no difference between the hon. Gentleman’s point and mine. The UK ultimately decides on its foreign policy and where its troops go, and I would be against giving up the veto on that. However, during the past five years that he mentioned, we have lacked influence because of previous mistaken foreign policy decisions, and we have not been in a position to persuade people to do more. That is the danger. However, with a new President changing the parameters and in the light of speeches made by Vice-President Biden, I hope that we can reach out and have more influence.
The hon. Gentleman may be right—I might be Panglossian in my optimism, but we should approach this as a new chance and opportunity to take difficult decisions and bring others with us.
Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he has been very generous. I want to be crystal clear on this point when foreign policy statements are made by the hon. Gentleman, not only in this debate but in future debates. In relation to the United States and wider foreign policy issues, is it the policy of the Liberal Democrats to give up the veto on foreign policy and defence matters? I understand that that was a stated aim of his predecessor.
Mr. Davey: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could show me that statement. Our party passed a policy at its October conference, stating very clearly that we would not give up the veto on foreign policy or defence measures. My understanding is that that has been a long-standing policy of our party. That is factually the case, although I know that there are some in British politics who have tried to portray it as otherwise. ... Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister put on record whether the Government would be prepared, on the request of the American Administration, to take into this country detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay but who are not UK citizens?
Gillian Merron: No, I cannot confirm that. The Foreign Secretary has said recently that we have undertaken our duty. However, we will work with countries that are already seeking our assistance in facilitating the closure of the detention facility. ... Mark Pritchard: Does the Minister agree that it is particularly unhelpful to the so-called special transatlantic relationship when some Members of the House suggest that all this country’s and, indeed, some of the world’s current economic ills started in America?
Gillian Merron: It is important to say from where the economic challenges come, but perhaps the purpose of this debate—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will feel that this is a good note on which to end—is to consider what we can now do together to overcome the challenges that we face. | 